It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9/11 Qui Tam Case Will Have Its Day in Court

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Source Link: www.prlog.org...

[In 2005, a number of reports were issued by NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) which were the result of a study, mandated by congress, to "Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed ...".

In April 2007, Dr. Wood, with the help of a Connecticut Attorney Jerry Leaphart, lodged a “Qui Tam” complaint against some of the contractors employed by NIST.]


It looks like this will be one huge step in the right direction towards more investigations, open court hearings and/or at the very least legitimate open discusion regarding the false reports or lack their of within the official 9/11 report and NIST studies. The events of 9/11 has pulled at the heart strings of not only Americans but other countries as well who's lives have dramatically changed since then. I truly hope this brings some new sheeple to the fight for disclosure and truth!




posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Was thinking we'd slipped into a timewarp or something because this case was dismissed 'with prejudice' last year but it seems you're correct and an appeal is to be heard.


This appeal is now scheduled for oral argument on 23rd June 2009, in the Ceremonial Courtroom (9th Floor), Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Manhattan, New York City, and is open to attendance by the general public.


Perhaps a member who is closer to the US judicial system can confirm this for us.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Was thinking we'd slipped into a timewarp or something because this case was dismissed 'with prejudice' last year but it seems you're correct and an appeal is to be heard.


It was dismissed with prejudice. "With prejudice" means they can't file any more lawsuits on those same grounds. They can still file an appeal, ans it was almost a given they'd file an appeal. Everyone files an appeal.

FYI an appeal doesn't mean they're going to try the case all over again. It means they want a higher court to review the ruling in case any mistakes or evidence was withheld that unfairly influenced the ruling, and Jones/Reynolds are going to need more than "we don't like the way the court ruled" for it to go anywhere. Their "energy weapons from outer space" claims didn't have a microbe of proof to back it up to begin with.

I wouldn't count on this doing anything more than fizzling out like a wet match, if I were you.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I'm not counting on it going anywhere either


Still interested in what's presented and the court response though as the current appeal seems to be to do with some key issues not dealt with last year which probably won't include the 'sci-fi' aspects this time. The case may yet again fail to survive the first day but it will at least have been heard.



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Was thinking we'd slipped into a timewarp or something because this case was dismissed 'with prejudice' last year but it seems you're correct and an appeal is to be heard.


It was dismissed with prejudice. "With prejudice" means they can't file any more lawsuits on those same grounds. They can still file an appeal, ans it was almost a given they'd file an appeal. Everyone files an appeal.

FYI an appeal doesn't mean they're going to try the case all over again. It means they want a higher court to review the ruling in case any mistakes or evidence was withheld that unfairly influenced the ruling, and Jones/Reynolds are going to need more than "we don't like the way the court ruled" for it to go anywhere. Their "energy weapons from outer space" claims didn't have a microbe of proof to back it up to begin with.

I wouldn't count on this doing anything more than fizzling out like a wet match, if I were you.




Why are people so ignorant to the facts?


If anyone has taken the time to read the FULL press release instead of the tiny quote in the top post, you will see the following:


EXCERPT from external source:

www.prlog.org...

Contrary to what Dr Wood’s critics say, her Qui Tam submissions do not discuss the use of “ray beams from space”, but they focus on a number of pieces of evidence which indicate the presence of field effects in and around the WTC complex on 9/11.



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
Why are people so ignorant to the facts?

If anyone has taken the time to read the FULL press release instead of the tiny quote in the top post, you will see the following:

Contrary to what Dr Wood’s critics say, her Qui Tam submissions do not discuss the use of “ray beams from space”, but they focus on a number of pieces of evidence which indicate the presence of field effects in and around the WTC complex on 9/11.



Pot calling the kettle black, anyone? If you're going to quote the Judy Wood suit then to quote it properly it behooves you to go the the source, not some pre-digested version of it. Here's the actual court ruling PDF-

Another conspiracy theory smack down

Her entire bit backing the lawsuit was that the true reason for the collapse was directed energy weapons from outer space, and on those grounds, she sued that NIST was knowingly committing fraud by claiming it was due to other reasons, and was thus guilty of conspiring in a coverup. Her suit failed becuase...

a) Just because she disagreed with the NIST report it doesn't mean the NIST report wasn't a legitimate report.

b) She supplied no evidence that NIST knowingly tried to defrad the gov't or anyone else, or that they willfully attempted to cover up anything, and

c) she has no grounds to sue becuase she suffered no injury herself, which is the whole purpose of Qui Tam to begin with

From what I can tell, her appeal is based upon things like the court not taking into account "evidence" there was a conflict of interest I.E. people in NIST having connections to companies making directed energy weapons, but nonetheless she's still basing everything entirely upon her unproven and unprovable "energy beams" hypothesis, so until she can back that up with somethign other than absolutely nothing, all of her subsequent accusations based upon her energy beam weapons hypothesis are going to be shot down in a ball of flame.

I have $100 that says her lawsuits will all be shot down in a ball of flame. Does anyone here have $100 that says they won't?

[edit on 20-6-2009 by GoodOlDave]



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
Why are people so ignorant to the facts?

If anyone has taken the time to read the FULL press release instead of the tiny quote in the top post, you will see the following:

Contrary to what Dr Wood’s critics say, her Qui Tam submissions do not discuss the use of “ray beams from space”, but they focus on a number of pieces of evidence which indicate the presence of field effects in and around the WTC complex on 9/11.



Pot calling the kettle black, anyone? If you're going to quote the Judy Wood suit then to quote it properly it behooves you to go the the source, not some pre-digested version of it. Here's the actual court ruling PDF-

Another conspiracy theory smack down

Her entire bit backing the lawsuit was that the true reason for the collapse was directed energy weapons from outer space, and on those grounds, she sued that NIST was knowingly committing fraud by claiming it was due to other reasons, and was thus guilty of conspiring in a coverup. Her suit failed becuase...

a) Just because she disagreed with the NIST report it doesn't mean the NIST report wasn't a legitimate report.

b) She supplied no evidence that NIST knowingly tried to defrad the gov't or anyone else, or that they willfully attempted to cover up anything, and

c) she has no grounds to sue becuase she suffered no injury herself, which is the whole purpose of Qui Tam to begin with

From what I can tell, her appeal is based upon things like the court not taking into account "evidence" there was a conflict of interest I.E. people in NIST having connections to companies making directed energy weapons, but nonetheless she's still basing everything entirely upon her unproven and unprovable "energy beams" hypothesis, so until she can back that up with somethign other than absolutely nothing, all of her subsequent accusations based upon her energy beam weapons hypothesis are going to be shot down in a ball of flame.

I have $100 that says her lawsuits will all be shot down in a ball of flame. Does anyone here have $100 that says they won't?

[edit on 20-6-2009 by GoodOlDave]




Do I need to tell you, for a second time, that Dr Wood's court case has nothing to do with "outer space"?

Anyone reading the dismissal court paper will see, clearly, that it either was directed by the 9/11 cover-up perps, or, it was written under emotional strain (due to the emotions regarding 9/11).

One must use their common sense and not assume that a document written by a court is legally accurate.

Comments on the a,b,c in above quote:


a: Dr Wood is a materials engineering scientist and her Request for Correction is a legal forensic investigation based on an analysis of court-admissible evidence. The court document you link does not refute Dr Wood's analysis.

b: Two points here. First, Dr Wood does not claim NIST defrauded the government. (NIST is part of the government.) Dr Wood claims that the contractors hired by NIST committed fraud via, at minimum, "willful blindness", in that they did not speak up of the evidence of DEW at the WTC. This willful blindness can be assumed via common sense since the contractors in question are manufacturers of directed energy weapons as well as founding sponsors of the Directed Energy Professional Society. Second Dr Wood's RFC is a forensic, legal, court-admissible investigation of the evidence. The dismissal document linked in the quote above does not refute the evidence in Dr Wood's forensic investigation. Instead, it makes comparisons to the JFK assassination and the moon landings.


c: Dr Wood has grounds to sue because she is an American citizen. That is what qui tams are for.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Well today's the day, in the US of course. It's actually tuesday 24th here in Oz.

Anxious to hear a summary of how the appeal proceedings go which shouldn't be a problem if the hearing is open to the public as was claimed.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
Do I need to tell you, for a second time, that Dr Wood's court case has nothing to do with "outer space"?


Yes, it does. The entire thing driving this lawsuit is becuase of her hypothesis of enery weapons in Earth orbit. That statement isn't coming from me. It's coming from the trial judge in the ruling.


Anyone reading the dismissal court paper will see, clearly, that it either was directed by the 9/11 cover-up perps, or, it was written under emotional strain (due to the emotions regarding 9/11).


No, the only thing "clear" is that your claim is circular logic. You make an unproven statement that there has to be some coverup, so becuase this ruling dismisses her lawsuit you likewise assume it has to be another coverup. All you're doing is repeating the original unproven statement in different terms.


One must use their common sense and not assume that a document written by a court is legally accurate.


???Huh? I posted the written ruling that was decided by the court, so yes, by definition it *is* legally accurate. Just becuase you personally don't agree with the legal ruling it doesn't mean it's not a legal ruling.


a: Dr Wood is a materials engineering scientist and her Request for Correction is a legal forensic investigation based on an analysis of court-admissible evidence. The court document you link does not refute Dr Wood's analysis.


It wasn't the purpose of the court document to examine Dr. Wood's analysis. The document was to show the legal ruling of why her claim was dismissed.


b: Two points here. First, Dr Wood does not claim NIST defrauded the government. (NIST is part of the government.) Dr Wood claims that the contractors hired by NIST committed fraud via, at minimum, "willful blindness", in that they did not speak up of the evidence of DEW at the WTC. This willful blindness can be assumed via common sense since the contractors in question are manufacturers of directed energy weapons as well as founding sponsors of the Directed Energy Professional Society.


Thus, the major reason why her lawsuit failed. She was unable to prove the NIST report was itself a fraudulent report and not simply a report that legitimately came up with different findings, and thus, she couldn't prove the NIST people made any fraudulent claim for payment. There are many other common sense reasons why the contractors wouldn't consider her energy weapons from outer space other than "willful blindness", namely, that it's too ridiculous to really take seriously, which is obviously what the court went by.


b]Second Dr Wood's RFC is a forensic, legal, court-admissible investigation of the evidence. The dismissal document linked in the quote above does not refute the evidence in Dr Wood's forensic investigation. Instead, it makes comparisons to the JFK assassination and the moon landings.


...becuase, again, it wasn't the court's obligation to review her evidence (or lack thereof). It's obligation was to rule on her claim that the NIST report was fraudulent. This wasn't the court she would need to give her "court admissible investigation" to.


c: Dr Wood has grounds to sue because she is an American citizen. That is what qui tams are for.


Nope. Qui Tams are to "sue on the behalf of oneself in addition to the king". For Qui Tam to be applicable in this case she needed to a) have 'direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based', and must not be public knowledge, and b) prove an attempt to knowingly commit fraud against the gov't by the defendents. She wasn't a whistleblower, all her information was based upon what other people told her, and she couldn't prove willful fraud, so neither were applicable in her lawsuit.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



For you to assume court docs are legally accurate shows you don't know much. You are blindly trusting without looking at information. This is because you already made up your mind of what to believe. Nothing will change your mind.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Well today's the day, in the US of course. It's actually tuesday 24th here in Oz.

Anxious to hear a summary of how the appeal proceedings go which shouldn't be a problem if the hearing is open to the public as was claimed.



ARA's counsel was very rude in that she kept referring to Dr Wood as "Ms" Wood.

Also she used the word "outrageous" to describe Dr Wood's findings. She did this for two reasons:

1. She could not legally/scientifically refute Dr Wood's findings.

2. She tried to get on the emotional side of the judges.


During Mr Leaphart's rebuttal, one of the judges said something to the effect that Dr Wood merely came to a different conclusion than NIST. Mr Leaphart had to remind the judges that NIST did not analysis the so-called "collapses", as stated in the NIST Report itself! So they did not even form a conclusion.

So, even the judges are finding it difficult to grasp the truth. Hopefully, today's hearing will make it easier.



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
For you to assume court docs are legally accurate shows you don't know much. You are blindly trusting without looking at information. This is because you already made up your mind of what to believe. Nothing will change your mind.


You just don't want to admit you're wrong, do you? I didn't post some text I saw on the back of a cereal box. I posted the actual legal ruling on the case as written by the judges themselves, so there IS no other information to look at. You may disagree with the ruling, and it's obvious that you do, but your disagreeing with the legal ruling does not in any way make it any less of a legal ruling.

Why are you even arguing so passionately over this, anyway? You're not the one who brought this lawsuit to trial, are you?



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
During Mr Leaphart's rebuttal, one of the judges said something to the effect that Dr Wood merely came to a different conclusion than NIST. Mr Leaphart had to remind the judges that NIST did not analysis the so-called "collapses", as stated in the NIST Report itself! So they did not even form a conclusion.

So, even the judges are finding it difficult to grasp the truth. Hopefully, today's hearing will make it easier.


I am goign to paraphrase one of the authors of the 9/11 commission report- The scenario they put forward in the report may not be 100% accurate, but so far, the report is showing to be more credible than any of the alternative scenarios. It just plain amazes me how otherwise intelligent people can argue so fiercely against aircraft laden with fuel being able to bring down a skyscraper, only to turn around and claim it was really brought down by laser beams from outer space.

If you want to argue these alternative scenarios, fine, but good grief, try to keep some resemblance to reality, here.




top topics



 
2

log in

join